Re: Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties

John,

I suggested that POST be the default.

In another thread, the proposal is to make {safety} OPTIONAL. If absent, 
then the operation is assumed to be unsafe, hence POST is a reasonable 
default.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
05/23/2006 04:10 PM
Please respond to
woden-dev@ws.apache.org


To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc
woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
Subject
Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties






Some questions arose while implementing HTTP extensions from Part 2 
Adjuncts.

In 6.3.1 HTTP Method Selection at [1]  is there a default value for {http 
method} if the {safety} property is "false"?

In 3.1 Operation Safety at [2] the {safety} property is defined as 
REQUIRED with a default value of "false" if not specified in the WSDL, so 
is the wording at [1] "...if a {safety} property ... is present ..." 
redundant (i.e. {safety} will always be present)?

And there's a possible typo in section 3.1 at [2].  The assertion refers 
to "...a safe interaction defined in Section 3.5 of [Web Architecture]". I 
think this should say Section 3.4 (i.e. section 3.4 Safe Interactions).

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#_http_binding_default_rule_method 

[2] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html#property-InterfaceOperation.safety 


regards,
John Kaputin